From: A review of educational-based gambling prevention programs for adolescents
Authors | Design | Participants | Findings |
---|---|---|---|
King and Hardy (2006) | Developed gambling action team (GAT) to address campus gambling Prioritize in: (a) developing comprehensive gambling education program; (b) providing gambling related consultation; (c) developing problem gambling awareness approach; (d) ensuring compliance with local efforts, law and legislation | Participants: Students from University of Alabama campus | Effectiveness of the program was not evaluated The program was comprehensive as it targeted: (a) awareness and information; b) skill development and education; c) capacity building, community development and institutional change; (d) social and public policy; prevention aimed at individuals at high risk |
Turner et al. (2008a) | Examined a 1 h prevention program for PG, targeting gambling myths, poor coping skills, emotional distress and problem solving skills | N = 374 from grade 5 to 12 from 18 schools, divided into treatment and control group | Significant improvements on gambling misconceptions reported, F (1,360) = 6.8, p < 0.01, in the treatment group but no significant effect on gambling behaviour, coping skills and gambling attitudes |
Turner et al. (2008a) | Examined a school-based educational program focusing on PG awareness, self-monitoring and coping skills and random chance knowledge | N = 201 students of age 15–18, divided into treatment and control group | Significant increased in knowledge in random chances, F(1, 9.4) = 14.7, p < .01, self-monitoring, F(1, 8.4) = 6.4, p < .05, and coping skills, F(1, 9.6) = 9.7, p < .02, reported in treatment group Found a moderate to high impact on students who were at-risks |
Williams et al. (2010) | Examined a school-based prevention program to prevent PG Five to six interactive lessons: (1) history of gambling; (2) problem gambling; (3) gambling fallacies; (4) decision making and problem solving, and (5) barriers to good decision making and problem solving | N = 1240 students from grade 9–12 from 14 schools, divided into treatment and control group | Significant improvements in gambling knowledge, F(2, 1235) = 35.1, p < .001), gambling attitudes, F(2, 1235) = 15.4, p < .001, decision making, problem solving, F(2, 1235) = 6.29, p = .002, resistance to gambling fallacies F(2, 1235) = 34.4, p < .001, reported in treatment group. More negative attitudes towards gambling Significant reduction in rates of gambling frequency, F(2, 1235) = 4.07, p = .017, and PG, χ 2 (1 df) = 3.75, p = .053, reported in treatment group |
Luk et al. (2011) | Examined a positive youth development program (P.A.T.H.S) to help students to develop intrapersonal, interpersonal skills and sense of personal autonomy Focus group conducted to examine the impression and perceived benefits of the program | N = 232 secondary one students from two schools, 16 students selected for focus group sessions | Significant positive change in the social competency scores (p = .0001) compared to the pre-test Significant reduction in life satisfaction scale and an increase in behavioral intention to drink alcohol and to gamble Program was reported boring by some students Improvements on interpersonal skills, emotion management and a sense of responsibility reported |